The most common argument I've heard against non-violent resistance is that it couldn't have worked against the Nazis, and likewise it couldn't work in whatever conflict is being discussed.
Today, out of curiosity, I did a search for "Non-violent resistance Nazi Germany" and didn't come up with much. But I did come up with one very interesting article. (You can read the whole thing here- this is part 4, but you can click on the links if you want to read all 7 parts).
The most interesting paragraph:
quote:
The history of the Holocaust shows little resistance of any kind to Hitler from the Jews ( this is not surprising - they could not believe anything as terrible as the "final solution" was contemplated. Historically the Jews survived anti-Semitism by keeping a low profile). Some have said "The Jews were pacifists and look what it got them!" Sorry, they were passive - there is a world of difference. There is no way of knowing if active pacifism would have had any chance of working - we only know it was not tried. I remember the chilling deduction of Hannah Arendt in her book on Eichmann, in which she concluded it was the passive cooperation of the Jews of Europe with the Nazis which helped make the Holocaust possible. If you think about this for a moment it is, unhappily, true. To track down, arrest, transport and kill six million people who are resisting - even by not showing up when ordered, would, at the very least, have caused massive public disorder. (Nothing is easier than saying "I would have resisted" - a cheap sentiment expressed by people who weren't there. Documents show some resistance, such as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Violent or nonviolent, radicals honor resistance).
SOME ISOLATED VICTORIES AGAINST HITLER
But within Occupied Europe there were well documented victories for nonviolence. In Norway there was a successful teachers' strike against being forced to teach Nazi ideology. In Denmark the opposition to the Nazis was led by the King, who said that if the Jews had to put on the "Yellow Star of David", then he, the King, would be the first man in Denmark to put one on. When the Nazis moved to arrest the Danish Jews, members of the Gestapo leaked this news to the Danish authorities and in 48 hours virtually all the Jews in Denmark were gotten to safety in Sweden. In Bulgaria, which had no history of anti-Semitism, spontaneous civil resistance (including crowds sitting on train tracks) prevented the Nazis from shipping any Jews out of the country.
I know I'm asking something that sounds ludicrous, but humor me for a minute. Imagine if the Allies had set up a systematic, continent-wide non-violent offensive, including the Jews and any sympathisers within Nazi Germany itself.
In light of the facts from the above article, would a non-violent offensive have stood a chance against Hitler? Why or why not? ****************************************************** 06-27-02, 11:04 PM Weeful Both the Germans and the Jews contributed to the Holocaust as you pointed out, and if both had offered nonviolent resistance, the game would have been up for Hitler. He could not have waged war on the scale he did if his own nation and his intended victims had resisted. In fact, if the Germans and Jews (both of whom had plenty of warning ahead of time) had resisted Hitler even after he gained power in 1933, WWII would never have happened.
06-27-02, 11:09 PM referenth
quote:Originally posted by Sarai:
Imagine if the Allies had set up a systematic, continent-wide non-violent offensive, including the Jews and any sympathisers within Nazi Germany itself.
In light of the facts from the above article, would a non-violent offensive have stood a chance against Hitler? Why or why not?
It could only have worked if at least hundreds of thousands of people had the resolve to see it through for years. That seems unlikely back then. Individuals and small groups helped some people amid the horror. Maybe in the future a mass movement could happen.
I'd like to add German passive resistance to the Nazis. Perhaps the most famous, though short-lived (summer 1942 to February 1943), was the group of German university students called Die Weisse Rose (the White Rose). They leafleted and mailed anti-Nazi propoganda (and some graffiti), calling for Germans to passively resist the Third Reich ( The White Rose ).
06-28-02, 01:12 AM mahal There have been two bloodless coups in Manila, one against a dictator (Ferdinand Marcos) and one against a bumbling wannabe president (Joseph Estrada). My wife got to be part of the first one, but not the second--her friends wouldn't let her because her marriage (to me big grin ) was only a few weeks away.
Filipinos call them the Edsa Rebellion and Edsa II (the sequel). Edsa refers to the interstate highway that circles Manila, not that that has anything to do with it, since the Edsa wasn't the only thing shut down by the people.
The first one resulted in Marcos going into exile in Hawaii, replaced by a woman (Cory Aquino), the second resulted in Joseph Estrada floating down the filthy Pasig River in the presidential barge, and he was also replaced by a woman (Gloria Magapagal). These were the only two women to serve as presidents there.
The second rebellion was kinda funny, it's also called the cell phone rebellion because as soon as the people in Manila realized that there was a call for a second Edsa, they all got on their cell phones and sent text messages to all their friends to go into the streets, bring food and join in the protest, mostly around the Malacanang (their version of the White House).
2,000,000 pinoys with their lumpia and cell phones clogged the streets and stopped traffic around the city demanding Joseph resign, which he did. The only way for him to pacify the people was to leave the residence to his vice president, Magapagal, and the only way out of the residence was by the river.
06-28-02, 10:44 AM JohnGalt It is not the violence that is evil. It is the initiation violence that is evil. So anyone turning on the Nazis with violence in self-defense is perfectly moral. In fact, pacifism in the face of tyranny is just as evil as the tyranny itself.
"Beware lest in your anxiety to avoid war you obtain a master. -Demosthenes
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for the good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
06-28-02, 10:54 AM JohnGalt
quote:Originally posted by Sarai: Imagine if the Allies had set up a systematic, continent-wide non-violent offensive, including the Jews and any sympathisers within Nazi Germany itself.
In light of the facts from the above article, would a non-violent offensive have stood a chance against Hitler? Why or why not?
No, it would not have worked.
Here's why: Long before Hitler's true agenda was realized in time to start such a campaign, the Nazi government had already disarmed the entire populace of Germany--in the name of peace, security and crime control. (Ironically those most inclined to later non-violent resistence would be the ones most inclined to agree with this gun control policy!) By the time it became clear what Hitler's true intentions were, the only ones with the guns in Germany were the Nazis themselves. And I don't care how noble the effort is on part of non-violent resisters; I don't care how many of them there are; I don't care how vailant and brave they are (or think they are)--when the government is the only ones with the guns, then the government is the only one with all the power. And they will always misuse that power.
Just look at the words of Dachau Concentration Camp Survivor, Theodore Haas, when asked if the topic of, "If only we were armed before..." ever came up in the camps, this is what he had to say:
"Many, many times. Before Adolph Hitler came to power, there was a black market in firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned to be law-abiding that they would never consider buying an unregistered gun. The German people really believed that only hoodlums own such guns. What fools we were. It truly frightens me to see how the government, media and some police groups in America are pushing for the same mindset. In my opinion, the people of America had better start asking and demanding answers to some hard questions about firearm ownership, especially 'If the government does not trust us to own firearms, why or how can we be expected to trust the government?' There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people were not brainwashed about gun ownership and had been well-armed. Hitler's thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half-starved group of Jews took up ten handguns and made a$$es out of the Nazis."
06-28-02, 11:06 AM Sarai
quote:Originally posted by JohnGalt: It is not the violence that is evil. It is the _initiation_ violence that is evil. So anyone turning on the Nazis with violence in self-defense is perfectly moral. In fact, pacifism in the face of tyranny is just as evil as the tyranny itself.
__"Beware lest in your anxiety to avoid war you obtain a master.__ -Demosthenes
__"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for the good men to do nothing."__ - Edmund Burke
JohnGalt, I'm trying to stay out of this, because I genuinely want to hear different arguments, but I have to make sure you understand what is meant by non-violent resistance. Non-violent resistance is NOT "doing nothing," as your second quotation implies, nor is it passive in any way. "Passive resistance" is a horribly misleading expression. I am talking about *actively* resisting but without using violence. It is a form of fighting. I feel like this is becoming a mantra because I've had to repeat it so often, but it's really important that you understand the huge difference between being passive and *actively*, non-violently resisting.
I'm not arguing that violence is immoral. However, if given the choice between non-violent and violent resistance, and both have the potential to work, I think we'd all agree that the first option is morally preferable. However, if non-violent resistance couldn't work, then I agree that violence is preferable to doing nothing.
Also, I want to remind you that non-violent resistance has worked when used by people who didn't have much in the way of weapons against major world powers (India vs. Britain and the Black Americans vs. White Americans). So I'm not sure that it is correct to argue that unarmed people could never have a chance.
Just clarifying to make sure we're talking about the same thing! smile
06-28-02, 11:18 AM den0eng3 Sarai, doesn’t the whole principle of non-violent resistance depend on the oppressors being reasonably civilised and having a conscience?
If six million Jewish people had come out into the streets to resist the Nazis non-violently, why wouldn’t the Nazis have slaughtered them all and said. “Thanks very much. That saved us building any death camps.”?
06-28-02, 11:35 AM Sarai I'm not sure. This is something I'm trying to decide. However, you have to ask yourself why the majority of death camps were placed outside of Germany. In part, it was because the majority of Jews were in Poland, but in part, it was to keep the reality of what they were doing away from the German people. Even the average Nazi didn't fully know the reality of what the "Final Solution" meant. They say that even Himmler himself couldn't stomach the camps (although, of course, he knew exactly what was happening). Remember that only a select few worked in the camps themselves.
Resisting right there in Germany might have woken a lot of people up. I don't believe that all Germans, or even all the Nazis, suddenly lost their consciences. They simply ignored the truth, riding the wave of good-feeling and hope and hate against people who were "out of sight, out of mind" that Hitler was building in them. Non-violence might have made ignoring the truth impossible.
06-28-02, 12:11 PM Strider0 As a practical matter, I don't think the German population and the German-Jewish population could have organized themselves in time to put up a successful non-violent resistance against the Nazis. This would have required a high degree of organization and the means and willpower to organize.
Considering what they were up against -- a tyrranical Nazi regime who was VERY highly organized and one that had the means, the willpower, and a highly developed extermination plan -- I just don't see how they would've prevented themselves from getting slaughtered in the streets. frown
06-28-02, 12:39 PM Sarai
quote:Originally posted by Strider0: As a practical matter, I don't think the German population and the German-Jewish population could have organized themselves in time to put up a successful non-violent resistance against the Nazis. This would have required a high degree of organization and the means and willpower to organize.
You may be right, Strider. After all, they weren't able to organize violently, either.
However, my question is about more than just Germany itself. What about the Allies? The Allies did have the power, means, and willpower to organize - they did, but they did so violently.
I'd never expect that they *would have* chosen non-violence, because it is such a new idea, even today. However, had they chosen it, do you think they would have had a chance? Read the second paragraph from the site and how there were a few, isolated incidents of successful non-violent resistance during WWII. Could this have worked on a larger scale?
06-28-02, 01:01 PM den0eng3
quote:Originally posted by Sarai: I'm not sure.
Oh dear. To be honest I'm not very comfortable in my support of the Intifada, and I was rather hoping you would be able to convince me that non-violent resistance could be just as effective. (I'm not saying this only because of the veiled threats I have received in the "Anti-Zionists" thread, although I'd be lying if I said I wasn't concerned about that.)
Up until quite recently I would have described myself as a pacifist, but lately I have been convinced by the argument that says:
Violence works. It always has and it always will. Just because you don't want that to be the truth, doesn't make it any less the truth. You can't change reality by screwing up your eyes and wishing really hard.
I think the abject failure of Britain to defeat the IRA demonstrates this perfectly. Sinn Fein/IRA have undoubtedly bombed their way to influence. I don’t see how any civil disobedience could have achieved that. And if it wasn’t for Igun and the Stern gang striking so ruthlessly at a time when Britain was sick and tired of war, would we have allowed the state of Israel to be set up? I seriously doubt it.
But all this sits very uneasily with some of my other convictions. I oppose the death penalty. I am a vegetarian, for heaven’s sake! I don’t think we are justified in mistreating and killing animals purely for the nice flavour and texture of meat. Medical research, yes, but meat, no.
But how can I possibly square that with thinking that it is justified for Palestinians to kill Israelis? Of course I don’t think that the lives of Israelis, even the most bigoted and wicked settlers, could be worth less than the life of a cow or a sheep.
How can I square all this?
[This message was edited by den0eng3 on 06-28-02 at 01:32 PM.]
06-28-02, 01:08 PM Sarai Post that question in the International Terrorism forum, and we'll have a hey-day debating the issue. It's taking all my self-control to keep from addressing your doubts right here, because I have very strong feelings about what the Palestinians could be doing, and yes, I believe non-violent resistance could work. I'm a little obsessed, actually. wink
But let's leave this forum for discussing history. Please post this question in the International Terrorism forum.
[This message was edited by Sarai on 06-28-02 at 01:25 PM.]
06-28-02, 01:37 PM den0eng3 Sarai, if it's all right with you, I will take a break from here for a few days. I am feeling a little overwrought, just now, what with one thing and another. Please don't take this as a snub. I'll be back just as soon as I get my "head back together", as you Americans say. A "hey-day" sounds just the ticket!
06-28-02, 01:42 PM Sarai Permission granted. Looking forward to said "hey day."
smile
06-28-02, 02:10 PM JohnGalt
quote:Originally posted by Sarai:
Non-violent resistance is NOT "doing nothing," as your second quotation implies, nor is it passive in any way. "Passive resistance" is a horribly misleading expression. I am talking about *actively* resisting but without using violence. It is a form of fighting. I feel like this is becoming a mantra because I've had to repeat it so often, but it's really important that you understand the huge difference between being passive and *actively*, non-violently resisting.
smile
Your points are well taken, and I understand what you are trying to say. The quotes I supplied were not aimed at you or your point of view, or meant to try to "prove you wrong". I just felt they could be applied to certain situations in the area of resisting tyranny—with or without violence, including 1930s Germany.
As for "non-violent" solutions to tyranny such as that brought on by the Nazis, I really don't know how any of that would work to completely stop the Nalzis. I understand that it makes sense to not comply with the Nazis--and do every non-violent thing in your power to resist them. But I think it would only slow the inevitable.
If you recall that scene in Schindler's List where the Jewish slave worker is asked by the Nazi to show him how fast he (the Jewish man) can make a hinge. The Jewish man quickly goes through the steps and makes a hinge in a few seconds. The Nazi then picks up the box of completed hinges and counts the number of hinges the Jewish man has made during his hours "on the job." There were only a handful of completed hinges. It was clear that the Jewish man was doing his part of "non-violent" resistance by deliberately slowing down the number of hinges he was being forced to make. Once this was clear to the Nazi, he pulled out his gun...
So while such tactics can be effective in certain instances, they only slow the bad guys--not stop them. And they can just as easily get the resistor killed as those who use violence. The Nazis had no problem killing those who chose non-violence just as easily as they killed violent resisters. I would rather take a couple Nazis with me if they are going to kill me! smile At some point, the good guys in the underground will have to take out a bridge, railroad, airport, etc. They may even have to take out some of the top leaders in the Nazi movement.
Various non-violent coups may have occurred occasionally here and there throughout history--but those are the exception, not the rule. I just don't think non-violent resistance alone would have stopped the Nazis. Sure, do all the non-violent resistence you can. But with the Nazis, eventually the next step had to be taken.
06-28-02, 02:48 PM Sarai I didn't want to start debating, but I can't resist. You make great points, John Galt, which is why you make a good debating partner. Therefore, I must respectfully disagree with you. smile
quote:Originally posted by JohnGalt:
If you recall that scene in _Schindler's List_ where the Jewish slave worker is asked by the Nazi to show him how fast he (the Jewish man) can make a hinge. The Jewish man quickly goes through the steps and makes a hinge in a few seconds. The Nazi then picks up the box of completed hinges and counts the number of hinges the Jewish man has made during his hours "on the job." There were only a handful of completed hinges. It was clear that the Jewish man was doing his part of "non-violent" resistance by deliberately slowing down the number of hinges he was being forced to make. Once this was clear to the Nazi, he pulled out his gun...
What if he had simply refused to do the work asked to do? He alone would be unsuccessful, and he alone would be killed. However, let's think beyond one person. What if all the Jews had refused? Refused to show up when called to get on the train. Refused to stand still while the Nazis decided who would go where. Refused to walk into the gas chambers. Refused to be counted. Refused to wear the yellow star of David. Refused to write postcards telling the family how great it was out in the new "relocated homes." Refused to be an asset to the Nazis by working themselves to death.
Would millions have been killed? Probably, but much less efficiently, and much less secretly. Remember, the concentration camps were not something the entire world knew about. Widespread murder in the streets of Germany would have been immediately known and understood. It sure would have been a lot harder to have rounded everyone up so cleanly, and swept them away from non-Jewish civilians, so that the Germans wouldn't see what was happening with their own eyes.
Also, remember that the Final Solution was determined in part because the Nazis wanted to stop using bullets on Jews, because they needed those bullets for war.
quote:So while such tactics can be effective in certain instances, they only slow the bad guys--not stop them.
But how many "bad guys" are really out there? This is a question about human nature, I suppose. Can a crowd of millions watch injustice again and again without eventually rebelling against it? Is there not something true about the idea that dictatorships perform more evil because only a small group is making the decisions, and power corrupts? But when the people are aware, and can see what is happening, when non-violent resistors refuse to let the violence be swept away to some far-away place where the average civilian can only sense it, but not be confronted with it, wouldn't that change things? Was the average German, even the average German soldier or Nazi, really evil?
Would the average Nazi soldier have been so keen to kill their hateful enemies if the enemies had time after time acted like the opposite of the evil, German-hating, immoral, corrupt beings Hitler had made them out to be?
If so, how do you explain the few successful incidences in the quotation I gave?
quote:And they can just as easily get the resistor killed as those who use violence. The Nazis had no problem killing those who chose non-violence just as easily as they killed violent resisters. I would rather take a couple Nazis with me if they are going to kill me! smile
Well, this is where we differ. While I agree that the non-violent resistor can be killed as easily as a soldier, after a while, I don't think that holds true.
The average person can kill easily when they believe it is self-defense, or when they believe they are destroying evil. Non-violent resistance doesn't put the enemy in danger, however, so only the most corrupt could argue for long that violence is self-defense against non-violent resistors.
Non-violent resistors also act in such a way that only the most corrupt could call their actions "evil", while it is easy to use propaganda to call an enemy who is fighting against you in war "evil". Eventually, I believe an army of people would lose it's resolve against non-violent resistors, but only after some lives have been taken.
Against violent resistors using warfare, however, an army might never lose it's resolve, because anger and fear make humans unstoppable.
quote:At some point, the good guys in the underground will have to take out a bridge, railroad, airport, etc. They may even have to take out some of the top leaders in the Nazi movement.
Maybe. We wouldn't know unless we had actually seen non-violence being used on a wide scale. I'm beginning to think the German people themselves would have turned against the Nazis before it would have come to that, had the allies effectively used non-violent resistance.
quote:Various non-violent coups may have occurred occasionally here and there throughout history--but those are the exception, not the rule. I just don't think non-violent resistance _alone_ would have stopped the Nazis. Sure, do all the non-violent resistence you can. But with the Nazis, eventually the next step had to be taken.
Could it be that non-violence is the exception, and not the rule, because people haven't considered it enough to develop its technique (as we have fully perfected the technique of war)? It used to be that slavery was the rule, and perfectly normal. Today it is the exception. Norms, even those that have existed for all of human history (like slavery), can become outdated.
06-28-02, 03:28 PM Strider0
quote:Originally posted by Sarai: Read the second paragraph from the site and how there were a few, isolated incidents of successful non-violent resistance during WWII. Could this have worked on a larger scale?
Thank you, Sarai, for always giving me pause to think. I'm truly grateful1 smile
In reading much of the material at the website, I was taken regarding one of the most profoundly successful cases of non-violent resistance...that of the Christians winning over the Roman Empire...and I don't think anybody would argue that that case of non-violent resistance didn't work!
However, it took 300+ years for victory...and the followers of Christianity had incredibly strong convictions about their belief. Many many of them were also killed.
I think if the Allies had chosen the path of non-violent resistance, they probably could've won. But we might STILL be fighting the Nazi empire of the Third Reich non-violently.
I think non-violent resistance is very important, and highly preferred if it can work. Unfortunately, this form of "combat" takes time...lots of time...and will still likely result in lots of death. So the skeptic and/or the devil's advocate would ask...what is ultimaely gained in the end?
Unfortunately, most people in technologically advanced countries today don't have the sense of patience or committment to see such a strategic resistance through to its completion. They prefer something that is ended quickly and decisively...and somehow that is probably equated to a lesser loss of life in the long run.
Can non-violent resistance win the most problematic of battles against the likes of Nazi Germany? I concede that it can...IF. If, those resisting are organized and HIGHLY committed...and willing to die for their cause...for years and years and years, potentially.
06-28-02, 03:42 PM deeptread I do not think the Jewish people "realized" what was happening to them. It occurred over time, in graduated steps. The german civilian population was not told of what was going on either to a certain extent. If you knew, you and your family were to report to a train depot in order to be sent to a concentration camp where you would be worked, starved, and eventually gassed or shot to death, would you show up? Do you think the german people as a whole would approve if they knew what was going on at the death camps? (a tougher question) Most germans thought it was their patriotic duty to round up the Jews and send them away. It saddens me to even imagine what it must have been like for the Jews in Germany. I do not think it was until too late that passive resistance could even have been considered.
06-28-02, 04:48 PM Sarai
quote:Originally posted by Strider0:
However, it took 300+ years for victory...and the followers of Christianity had incredibly strong convictions about their belief. Many many of them were also killed.
True... but those were days when everything took longer. There was no mass communication, no printing press, no radio, no television, cameras, or film. I wonder how many Romans knew much about the Christians and the persecution against them, and I wonder if modern times, with vastly improved mass communication, haven't changed the speed with which people are able to understand injustice.
quote:I think if the Allies had chosen the path of non-violent resistance, they probably could've won. But we might STILL be fighting the Nazi empire of the Third Reich non-violently.
You might be right. I don't know how long it would have taken. I think it might have been much shorter, because the Germans might have lost their will sooner, but all this is pure speculation. No major powers have ever tried to use non-violence resistance on a wide enough scale for us to have any idea how long it would take.
Deeptread:
You're right. Most Jews, like most Germans and even the allied nations, weren't fully aware of what was happening with regard to the Holocaust. I hope it doesn't sound like I'm blaming the victim here.
I'm simply trying to decide if non-violent resistance would have stood a chance in the one situation everyone seems confident that nothing but war could have succeeded. But you're right - the resistance could not have begun with the Jews. They simply didn't know what horror they were facing.
However, I do have one question that I'd like to take to a historian: how did some Jews know enough to go into hiding before ever being taken even to the Ghettos, while others didn't?
The allies, however, knew they were facing something worth fighting against. Had the allies begun a well-organized offensive of non-violent resistance, I wonder how long it would have taken to spread to the German people and those living under German occupation.
06-28-02, 05:25 PM JohnGalt Non-violent resistance and the Nazis Sarai,
You make some good points. I guess if we are allowed to speculate then I would agree that had the German people realized what was going to happen to them in the near future, and if enough of them joined together and just refused all orders given to them, then the tragedy would not have been as great and would have went a ways to helping bring it to an end.
But I still say, guns in the hands of the Jews and other good guys (in addition to whatever non-violent methods people chose) would have helped end the horror far quicker than just non-violent means by itself.
The only problem is, not so much human nature (which as you pointed out would help the average person to eventually not go along with the mass killing of innocent unarmed people) but with the socio-political nature of Europeans of that time. They simply didn't question authorities. Americans (at that time) thought differently than Europeans in that respect. Unfortunately Americans have changed, and today the average American questions authority just about as much (which is to say barely) as the Jew who willingly stepped onto the railcar in 1939.
So in order for the non-violent (which I would prefer) solution to work, the great mass of the people must first learn to think for themselves, and not rely on the State as the great provider and protector. Then, and only then, will they all be able to come together and fight for what is right without a shot being fired.
06-28-02, 06:26 PM Sarai That could be true, John Galt. Food for thought.
07-01-02, 04:40 AM chanceygardner I just like to try to correct some of the misinformation I have read in several posts.
The death camps were not mostly in Eastern Europe. This is about the best map I found to highlight the locations. I hope you know where Germany is located on this particular map. The problem is that the history writers only concentrate on some of the camps, because people like Anne Frank went there or something like that.
In the earlier years, most Jewish people did not know what was happening outside of the camps. They were told they were being relocated to the East, and most were even told to buy a rail ticket to take them there. When they first arrived, or were at a transit camp, they were encouraged to send postcards to friends and relatives at home to tell them all was ok; many did this. On arrival at the camp, they were told that they would need to be disinfected or deloused, so they were moved to 'shower-blocks' - these were out of sight of the rest of the camp, so they still had no idea. In the 'shower-blocks', they were gassed.
There was resistance to the Nazis from all presecuted peoples. Both passive and active. Here is a description.
07-01-02, 09:42 AM Sarai Thanks, Chancey. I appreciate the information about resistance used by the Jews. The only question I have about the information you've sent is about the statement that the death camps weren't mostly in Eastern Europe. It was my understanding that the camps in the west were work camps, not death camps. Looking at the map (see the key), itappears that the "extermination camps" were all located East of Germany.
07-02-02, 06:48 AM chanceygardner Yes, perhaps you are correct, that camps solely for killing were located mostly in Poland, though certainly many were killed in the concentration camps also. The different naming doesn't really reflect that there were no similar activity in the types of camp, though in the extermination camps, the people were simply put immediately into ovens and burned alive (at least later, because bullets cost too much time and money). Of the approximate 6m people who died in all camps, it is roughly 50/50 death rate between 'extermination' and 'concentration/other type' camps. I found some other sites that you may be interested in:
07-02-02, 01:00 PM Sarai for these very interesting websites. I hate reading about the Holocaust, but offering me information about it is like handing a Christian a Bible... I feel guilty if I don't read it. frown
Anyway, I would be curious to know what your personal opinion is about the possibility that non-violent resistance might have worked against Hitler. As Deeptread wisely pointed out, it could not have begun with the Jews. They were simply put in a position in which it was almost impossible to organize, as your sites reinforce.
Note the successful, but small, uses of non-violence posted in the question. I know it sounds ludicrous, but had the allies launched a non-violent offensive along these lines, do you think it would have stood a chance?
07-03-02, 03:19 AM chanceygardner My honest opinion is....no chance.
People in Germany were so programmed (through years of propaganda - remember the Nazis had been in power for 6 years before the war even started - ,existing European attitudes and a peculiar tendency for strong leadership) to view other people as certainly inferior, even Sub-human. If you look at testimony from many of the Guards or Commandants of the Camps, you can see how they regarded not only the Jews, but also Handicapped people, Gypsies, Slavs, etc. as Non-humans. They really did see them as Animals to be used or thrown away without conscience. The Nazis interpreted 'appeasment' or 'passive resistance' as weakness and would not have hesitated to take advantage.
It really worries me when I see posts in this forum and on AskJeeves is many similar sentiments from Americans about Arabs/Palestinians as existed before for Nazis about Jews and other 'Untermensch'.
11-22-02, 11:13 AM Bibleman Sarai, there was at least one group. There is a fairly short article on the subject at this link: Jehovah's Witnesses: Courageous in the Face of Nazi Peril
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 2241 | Location: In between | Registered: 06-03-02
